[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 98 (Thursday, June 15, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H6030]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



[[Page H6030]]

                             GINGRICH-LITE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, the President's revelation of his new 
budget last night was actually quite remarkable. Fiscal responsibility 
has finally penetrated inside the Washington, DC. Beltway. That is, 
Washington, DC. has finally, the policymakers are now all in agreement 
that the massive debt which will exceed $5 trillion in the near future, 
about $17,000 for each and every living American citizen from the 
tiniest baby to the oldest senior citizen, is a real problem and it 
must be dealt with. And we have to move toward fiscal responsibility. 
That is the good news.
  Apparently, the President was very much affected by his joint 
appearance with Speaker Gingrich in New Hampshire last weekend, because 
his proposed budget is Gingrich-Lite, that is, it has the same 
priorities, the same misplaced priorities as the budget passed in this 
House 2 months ago, a budget written essentially by Speaker Gingrich 
and other senior Republicans. The President has adopted those same 
priorities, the same mistakes and the same peril to average Americans 
that is inherent in that budget.
  They both start out balancing the budget by cutting taxes. Does that 
make sense? If you are in the hole, is the first thing you do to cut 
your income? No, I do not think so. But that is what the Republican 
budget, $350 billion slanted heavily toward people earning over 
$100,000 a year and the largest, most profitable corporations, that is 
the Republican budget.
  Now, the President, certainly, it is better. It is only $93 billion 
in tax cuts, and it is a little more targeted, certainly, to middle-
income people. But still it is giving away revenue when you are in the 
hole. This is not a time for tax cuts, if we are serious about 
balancing the budget.
  Now we get to Medicare. The Gingrich Republican budget slashed 
Medicare by $288 billion. They said, there are problems with Medicare; 
we have got to fix it. Of course, they do not tell us what the fix is. 
They just tell us exactly how much we have to reduce benefits in order 
to fix it, and we will figure out later what it is we are doing.
  It is a little bit like burning down the village
   to save it, as we did in Vietnam a couple of decades ago.

  Now, the President, of course, is only going to reduce Medicare by 
$125 billion, Gingrich-Lite. But it still is a reduction without a 
clear plan to deal with the problems of Medicare. Veterans? Gingrich, 
$9 billion; Gingrich-Lite, the Clinton budget, $6 billion.
  Corporate agriculture, subsidies for large profitable corporate 
agriculture undertakings, like Sam Donaldson, a famous commentator, he 
gets $75,000 a year not to grow sheep on a ranch he does not live on. 
Is that essential? Well, apparently it is because there are small cuts 
in the Republican budget, even tinier cuts in Gingrich-Lite, the 
President's budget.
  Corporate welfare? They are about the same there, tiny, tiny cuts, an 
estimated $40 to $50 billion that could easily be recaptured from the 
largest, most profitable corporations in the world, many of them 
foreign corporations who operate in this country without paying a cent 
in taxes except for the FICA taxes on their employees. They move their 
profits offshore, and they take the money to the bank.
  The military? We just went through the Department of Defense markup 
here. We are looking at a massive increase in buildup in the military, 
a massive increase in buildup in star wars, 10 more B-2 bombers at $1.5 
billion each, more than the Pentagon itself requested. They said, Do 
not buy more B-2 bombers. Transport planes, the Pentagon did not ask 
for, submarines that the Pentagon did not ask for, an increase, the 
President asked for an increase in the military of $25 billion over the 
next 7 years. And the Republican budget, $68 billion on top of the 
President's $25 billion.
  Foreign aid, neither of them want to touch foreign aid. That is a 
little bit too hot of a political potato, even with the new fiscal 
realities of Washington, DC.
  There is a better way to get a balanced budget, a much better way. We 
can do it without touching Medicare. We can do it without slashing 
veterans' benefits, but we have to go after corporate agriculture big 
time, like $50 billion cuts in their subsidies. We are going to have to 
go after corporate welfare and the large, most powerful multinational 
corporations that do not pay a penny of taxes in this country, we are 
going to have to ask them to pay their fair share.
  Takes a little bit of will and guts, probably cuts big into the 
contributions of both a lot of Democrats and Republicans. But if we do 
not do that, then we are going to gut programs that are important to 
Americans instead of going after fairness and equity and a balanced 
budget that meets the priorities and needs of this country.


                          ____________________